I hate to disagree with you (making fun of liberals is so much better), but evolution being taught alongside creationism in science class is wrong for government funded schools. Creationism can be analyzed in a religion/history type class, but there is no scientific basis for creationism to be taught at all in science class.
My own personal opinion - and since it's my own, it doesn't belong in the school at all (lol) - is that I believe in evolution, but that there was a little help along the line. For instance, some of the things that made man so successful and evolved were opposable thumbs, color vison, etc. Sure, they helped us evolve, but how did we get them to start with? And how have we gotten to where we are after only 10's of thousands of generation, when other species are more-or-less the same after 10's of millions of generations?
These are the things that I ponder when I can't sleep at night.
There is also no basis for evolution to be taught either - in fact origins are outside of the classical scientific method. Only operational science (i.e. observable - repeatable - verifiable) is truly science most everything else that calls itself science is secular religion looking for legitimacy and legal protection - not to mention government grants.
If you think of science as the study of particles and creationism as the study of waveforms, and the study of the two together (science and creationism) as the study of the two together (particles and waveforms), it may be possible.
The one can be thought of as working from the individual (or the particulate) up to the whole whereas the other works (influences) from the whole down to the individual (or the particulate) - both occurring simultaneously while mutually supporting one another, the one necessary for the other.
It can be thought of as the study of the world and reality from both directions - the small to the large and the large to the small, if you will.
Also, the one can be thought of as the study of fact while the other as the study of value.
Quebec's is a bit more complex, but the deal is the same.
The Canadians do not use the First Amendment to beat up on each other because, alas, they do not have the First Amendment.
On the other hand, they use Canadian history as a way to force conformity. The Mennonites turn out to not be well embedded in Canadian history so they don't count for much. Consequently they can be kicked around by a Quebec school system bureaucrat (Ministry of Truth, eh?) and no one outside their own small community cares.
Now, having gotten through that part so that you and I can think about this through Canadian filters, what class do you think is most appropriate for instructing Mennonite children in totalitarianism?
Canadian history perhaps?